Received: by 10.213.65.68 with SMTP id h4csp227812imn; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:30:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48NY6WttlpXTDo8M4wKSoLywrvF6p5gO+igRyu6Qo4fmkqAQTn65fK237+W21ImmdG7c+2w X-Received: by 10.99.171.72 with SMTP id k8mr11002102pgp.355.1522809000434; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:30:00 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1522809000; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=RiPyZHb5xIo1Mvdh3sSaVeydAkT4cZABMsIas9rfTs08fCkmesp0vlKEaTy3taunDq nOCx9L1NuoIr++qhWkuUfAYR0SSMO13r1YM1mksYpPkhOwIvn1CUe7AP5BdPHpqxLe4F jK4dNO0oQKyxskn51PzYHQmwCLzInbQ5elSK4pXw38aBSoMHEqwIlreeqSIa+95Y2T+Z 2CiJzlFAYXcmYylM8qBuLhFUddZVOfADhwrmSUcWxTMPfH4ZSIq1iPgLA1QCkk8dt4rQ pcSiQMzoi8iLp+e5S/vgEHOJLXwH2Wtjkg/ot9ikIG+KOIo0OfxHZG/xcjMOQmW3M0fc MDqg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject:dkim-signature :arc-authentication-results; bh=qqMo3vQIdfJg/QsXHdR8DQqJSWXYlSMGiyU5019H1zw=; b=VOTFPoqiETAZEdDZtFhEQ0zIBy4H5Z3eg0o+1hcfNdDxlF/kdDj6hGnm+PX/dR2eKd w6vs4fUx68LR8MZyt4soEnUKMwyuIICa9yIGiUnK2RrGQC0KIoJGttwtzm/zDuTDcn3D RFVvycWJLouvV9LxY8yJ1fa3ohV4aXHTM3n7CkcaDpEFXOHA0qr9N+4/8HdYB5RDNg44 ozCRBKFaYOIRkXUG2Tw+gi9w7/hS7VDHvgil5TOuBi1b4A0fo03/vatfd+mK+dCvW/EU CSj1Y+/xA5+nVz/AOA5VHBMD5HOy3u0BT5MwJ8220ZEP2k0bMrh7hugvSmcK7OgIW4I1 jzYA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=fail header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=ApbjgzEE; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v12-v6si2094264plz.487.2018.04.03.19.29.46; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=fail header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=ApbjgzEE; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754908AbeDDC2l (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 3 Apr 2018 22:28:41 -0400 Received: from mail-ot0-f178.google.com ([74.125.82.178]:44722 "EHLO mail-ot0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752750AbeDDC2j (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2018 22:28:39 -0400 Received: by mail-ot0-f178.google.com with SMTP id p33-v6so15405998otp.11; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:28:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qqMo3vQIdfJg/QsXHdR8DQqJSWXYlSMGiyU5019H1zw=; b=ApbjgzEEu7g5jENu2cXdstgb+XKiyrz0Js6d0TBHN3hOPppiZrXRCuk6FopaAIchQo BeJwqJ6SQr5UX3JcH9ZySaoBIAes0WSO52ZoJX5Vfuirq67Lr9gageIk3x1u2RCIi5UZ 4yK29pMCv05ihzEZ6j1SvRcSzpF4VsCepfjG4qPEXjSa9EtiEpSwWtJ+sBg4qWf3unP/ /oDOPLQ9g2PKhjxmRCpi5BjC4VGn6mkTf9GXVm+tgVtODVitWLwDf3dFzLSQlvFOBg+O XekbQq83QXQlsmAApcbqI2L5IQth62A3KblarmBpVJ2Jm26h5foudfs+o6BLCdkkPoNY xNBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qqMo3vQIdfJg/QsXHdR8DQqJSWXYlSMGiyU5019H1zw=; b=dVQcXtc0Yujiqph/qYP4spqLCP5FSjEv8tcEM4ZOlbZAfFCLrT11gFPHVgVss7M0GV m7ovtT3Pb7aX/A3kGkSOI3wVGp9onRLSO7oB6LByZWwd7aCQWDT3BfGoRbprorUBc3/R bEJpPd+9kBvdGPqh23BI4Eqx+1Ss3cTLhLCDxADYwaUMFNsUi7fne8QrEs0JxXWyWZX8 bBMz3ltaz5h4+4MBQUjubE5FZiq2B8MxxZu5Cxk2+j2tYtuLiibnwRf1R4cWC0WAI/nM BuH0/ANur196d6W5lSWtTmIi5FBMayb+AgXNVNL49A3TS9pTBTOmdS+OtvXOKXnqd36P niDA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tDWopfsaulwUeob0KOy9gNZXDDvu4e0+gHHncV26hO4qWO6OW// Iw21j9dSPVzTxdiqKgOmG6Q= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:738b:: with SMTP id j11-v6mr8851149otk.169.1522808918477; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Larrylap.localdomain (cpe-24-31-251-255.kc.res.rr.com. [24.31.251.255]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g192-v6sm2597342oic.50.2018.04.03.19.28.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:28:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: RTL8723BE performance regression To: =?UTF-8?Q?Jo=c3=a3o_Paulo_Rechi_Vita?= , Yan-Hsuan Chuang , Ping-Ke Shih , Birming Chiu , Shaofu , Steven Ting , Chaoming Li , Kalle Valo Cc: linux-wireless , Network Development , LKML , Daniel Drake , =?UTF-8?Q?Jo=c3=a3o_Paulo_Rechi_Vita?= , linux@endlessm.com References: From: Larry Finger Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 21:28:36 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/03/2018 08:51 PM, João Paulo Rechi Vita wrote: > Hello, > > I've been trying to track a performance regression on the RTL8723BE > WiFi adapter, which mainly affects the upload bandwidth (although we > can see a decreased download performance as well, the effect on upload > is more drastic). This was first reported by users after upgrading > from our 4.11-based kernel to our 4.13-based kernel, but also > confirmed to affect our development branch (4.15-based kernel) and > wireless-drivers-next at the > wireless-drivers-next-for-davem-2018-03-29 tag. This is happening on > an HP laptop that needs rtl8723be.ant_sel=1 (and all the following > tests have been made with that param). > > My first bisect attempt pointed me to the following commit: > > bcd37f4a0831 rtlwifi: btcoex: 23b 2ant: let bt transmit when hw > initialisation done > > Which I later found to be already fixed by > > a33fcba6ec01 rtlwifi: btcoexist: Fix breakage of ant_sel for rtl8723be. > > That fix is already included in v4.15 though (and our dev branch as > well), so I did a second bisect, now cherry-picking a33fcba6ec01 at > every step, and it pointed me to the following commit: > > 7937f02d1953 rtlwifi: btcoex: hook external functions for newer chips > > Reverting that commit on top of our development branch fixes the > problem, but on top of v4.15 I get mixed results: a few times getting > a good upload performance (~5-6Mbps) but most of the time just getting > ~1-1.5Mpbs (which is still better than the 0.0 then test failure I've > gotten on most bad points of the bisect). > > Bisecting the downstream patches we carry on top of v4.15 (we base our > kernel on Ubuntu's, so there are quite a few downstream changes) did > not bring any clarity, as at all bisect points (plus reverting > 7937f02d1953) the performance was good, so probably there was some > other difference in the resulting kernels from my initial revert of > that patch on top of v4.15 and each step during the bisect. I've > experimented a bit with fwlps=0, but it did not bring any conclusive > results either. I'll try to look at other things that may have changed > (configuration perhaps?), but I don't have a clear plan yet. > > Have you seen anything similar, or have any other ideas or suggestions > to track this problem? Even without crystal clear results, it looks > like 7937f02d1953 is having a negative impact on the RTL8723BE > performance, so perhaps it is worth reverting it and reworking it a > later point? > > This are the results (testing with speedtest.net) I got at some key points: > > Version Commit Ping Down Up > > v4.11 a351e9b 12 25.44 5.99 > v4.11 a351e9b 131 17.02 5.89 > > v4.13 569dbb8 174 14.08 0.00 > v4.13 569dbb8 261 8.41 0.00 > > v4.15+revert d8a5b80 19 23.86 1.41 > v4.15+revert d8a5b80 189 18.69 1.39 > As the antenna selection code changes affected your first bisection, do you have one of those HP laptops with only one antenna and the incorrect coding in the FUSE? If so, please make sure that you still have the same signal strength for good and bad cases. I have tried to keep the driver and the btcoex code in sync, but there may be some combinations of antenna configuration and FUSE contents that cause the code to fail. Larry